# C_2021382EN.01000301.xml

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération bancaire française (FBF) v Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution (ACPR)

(Case C-911/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 263 and 267 TFEU - EU act which is not legally binding - Judicial review - Guidelines issued by the European Banking Authority (EBA) - Product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products - Validity - Competence of the EBA)

(2021/C 382/03)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fédération bancaire française (FBF)

Defendant: Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution (ACPR)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 263 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that measures such as the guidelines of the European Banking Authority (EBA), of 22 March 2016, on product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products (EBA/GL/2015/18) may not be the object of an action for annulment under that article; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 263 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that measures such as the guidelines of the European Banking Authority (EBA), of 22 March 2016, on product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products (EBA/GL/2015/18) may not be the object of an action for annulment under that article;

| 2. | Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the Court has jurisdiction, under that article, to assess the validity of measures such as the guidelines of the European Banking Authority (EBA), of 22 March 2016, on product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products (EBA/GL/2015/18); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the Court has jurisdiction, under that article, to assess the validity of measures such as the guidelines of the European Banking Authority (EBA), of 22 March 2016, on product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products (EBA/GL/2015/18);

| 3. | EU law does not require that the admissibility, before a national jurisdiction, of a plea of illegality directed against an EU measure be subject to the condition that that measure directly and individually concerns the person relying on that plea; |
| --- | --- |

3.

EU law does not require that the admissibility, before a national jurisdiction, of a plea of illegality directed against an EU measure be subject to the condition that that measure directly and individually concerns the person relying on that plea;

| 4. | Consideration of the third question referred for a preliminary ruling has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the guidelines of the European Banking Authority, of 22 March 2016, on product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products (EBA/GL/2015/18). |
| --- | --- |

4.

Consideration of the third question referred for a preliminary ruling has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the guidelines of the European Banking Authority, of 22 March 2016, on product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products (EBA/GL/2015/18).

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.

---